Suppr超能文献

在老年急性冠状动脉综合征患者通过有创或无创策略进行当代管理中,替格瑞洛与氯吡格雷相比的安全性

Safety of Ticagrelor Compared to Clopidogrel in the Contemporary Management Through Invasive or Non-Invasive Strategies of Elderly Patients Presenting with Acute Coronary Syndromes.

作者信息

Nazir Anum, Shetty Ujjar Smrthi, Saba Seemi, Ruparelia Neil, Spyrou Nicos, Fan Lampson

机构信息

The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, New Cross Hospital, Wolverhampton WV10 0QP, UK.

Royal Berkshire Hospital, Reading RG1 5AN, UK.

出版信息

J Clin Med. 2025 Aug 8;14(16):5629. doi: 10.3390/jcm14165629.

Abstract

ESC recommends ticagrelor over clopidogrel for the treatment of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) but the lack of evidence for elderly patients (≥75) and concerns over bleeding has led to significant variability in its use within the UK. Our aim is, therefore, to compare the safety of ticagrelor compared to clopidogrel in real-world elderly patients admitted with ACS and managed either medically or through percutaneous intervention. Unselected elderly patients (≥75) admitted to Royal Berkshire Hospital with ACS (2013-2015) were identified and followed for 1 year. The primary outcomes were bleeding events (TIMI criteria), all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, ischemic stroke, angina, NSTEMI and STEMI. A total of 288 patients with ACS were discharged with aspirin and either clopidogrel (137) or ticagrelor (151). In total, 152 of these patients underwent invasive angiography and revascularization. The baseline clinical characteristics and crusade bleeding score were similar between the groups receiving ticagrelor or clopidogrel. There were no significant differences in all-cause mortality (8.8% vs. 10.6%), cardiovascular mortality (2.9% vs. 2.0%), ischemic stroke (0.7% vs. 2.0%), angina (6.6% vs. 5.3%) or STEMI (2.2% vs. 1.3%). Patients on clopidogrel, however, had increased events of NSTEMI compared to ticagrelor (8.0% vs. 2.0%, OR 4.481, 95% CI 1.223-16.42) and overall MI (10.2% vs. 3.3%, = 0.030). No difference was observed in either major (8.8 vs. 8.6%) or minor TIMI bleeding (18.2% vs. 20.5%) and after propensity score matching (minor bleeding = 0.39, major bleeding = 0.76). In this real-world analysis, ticagrelor did not increase major or fatal bleeding compared to clopidogrel in elderly patients. In view of the mortality benefit in the large trials, additional cardiovascular benefit of ticagrelor should not be withheld on the basis of age as a perceived risk factor for bleeding in ACS.

摘要

欧洲心脏病学会(ESC)推荐替格瑞洛用于治疗急性冠状动脉综合征(ACS),而非氯吡格雷,但缺乏老年患者(≥75岁)的相关证据,且对出血问题的担忧导致其在英国的使用存在显著差异。因此,我们的目的是比较替格瑞洛与氯吡格雷在因ACS入院并接受药物治疗或经皮介入治疗的老年真实世界患者中的安全性。确定2013年至2015年因ACS入住皇家伯克郡医院的未选择的老年患者(≥75岁),并随访1年。主要结局包括出血事件(TIMI标准)、全因死亡率、心血管死亡率、缺血性卒中、心绞痛、非ST段抬高型心肌梗死(NSTEMI)和ST段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)。共有288例ACS患者出院时服用阿司匹林及氯吡格雷(137例)或替格瑞洛(151例)。其中,152例患者接受了有创血管造影和血运重建。接受替格瑞洛或氯吡格雷治疗的组间基线临床特征和出血评分相似。全因死亡率(8.8%对10.6%)、心血管死亡率(2.9%对2.0%)、缺血性卒中(0.7%对2.0%)、心绞痛(6.6%对5.3%)或STEMI(2.2%对1.3%)方面无显著差异。然而,与替格瑞洛相比,服用氯吡格雷的患者NSTEMI事件增加(8.0%对2.0%,比值比4.481,95%可信区间1.223 - 16.42),总体心肌梗死发生率也增加(10.2%对3.3%,P = 0.030)。在主要(8.8%对8.6%)或次要TIMI出血方面未观察到差异,倾向评分匹配后也是如此(次要出血P = 0.39,主要出血P = 0.76)。在这项真实世界分析中,与氯吡格雷相比,替格瑞洛在老年患者中并未增加主要或致命性出血。鉴于大型试验中的死亡率获益,不应因年龄被视为ACS出血的潜在危险因素而拒绝替格瑞洛额外的心血管获益。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9f81/12386568/b092ff3b3f1b/jcm-14-05629-g001.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验